NRC: Earthquake-related radioactive release could happen in U.S. once every 10 million years
"The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has released separate draft documents detailing the safety and environmental implications of methods for storing used fuel from nuclear reactors. Both are open for public comment.
When finalised, the two reports, Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement and the Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a US Mark I Boiling Water Reactor, should help bring to an end a licensing hiatus for the US regulator.
The Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) covers the environmental impact of the storage of used nuclear fuel at power plant sites for extended periods, and will form part of a new 'waste confidence rule' fundamental to power plant licensing. The existing waste confidence rule was updated in 2010 and doubled the period allowed for onsite storage of used fuel to 60 years. However, following challenges by various groups, it was declared invalid by the US Court of Appeal in 2012 in a ruling which said that the NRC had not performed a sufficiently detailed analysis of the related issues.
<>
Meanwhile, the draft used fuel pool study has concluded that there is approximately a one-in-10-million-years chance of a severe earthquake causing a radioactive release from a used fuel pool at a US boiling water reactor (BWR)."
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-NRC_moves_on_used_fuel_storage-2506137.html
Note: this is not Fukushima, this is any release. Now...seeing as: 1) life on earth will be extinct in 1/10,000 of the time before this event might happen, and 2) the Mark I Boiling Water Reactor is very close to being extinct right now, this 369-page exercise in futility is just another example of the absurd and costly hoops nuclear power providers have to jump through to appease primitive fears. Hopefully "various groups" will spend their time howling at the moon instead of standing in the way of a real and proven way to slow climate change.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Because facts matter.
The title of the post isn't supported by the draft report. The report simply doesn't say that the chance for a release "in U.S." is one in ten million years.
and your definition of "significant" is completely your own and not reflected in the report.
Nevertheless... the report certainly doesn't support a claim that this is any release as you claimed. For instance, as I noted, the situation scored as a "release" occurs quite some time after the pool is drained... yet they also calculate the dose rate on the refueling floor with varying loses of water (IOW, long before the "release"
... yet you can't have a dose rate if there's no radiation outside the pool.
the chances in the entire U.S. fleet would be reduced from 1 in 10,000,000 to 1 in 96,153.
A non-trivial difference - though no.... that wouldn't be the figure. You can't get the national figure by dividing 10,000,000 by 104.
What are the odds of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel plants destroying the oceanic food chain in the next 50 years?
Oh... no question.
...especially before claiming that someone else should be embarrassed. 
They're using a specific reference plant. It is intended to be representative... not identical to all other units.
